This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-02-06 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The conclusion is inescapable here, that each act of murder and frustrated murder should have been charged in separate informations because they are not covered by Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, accused-appellants may no longer question, at this stage, the duplicitous character of the information, i.e., charging several separate offenses in one information, to wit: (1) seven (7) separate acts of murder; and (2) frustrated murder. This defect was deemed waived by their failure to raise it in a motion to quash before they pleaded to the information.[79] | |||||